I know this will start a war but
Discussion
RamboLambo said:
ferdi p said:
Was bought retail & sold to the trade.
Cost of ownership was 90k over 3 years.
A brand new high spec 458 Spider would have been 220/230k in 2015, trade bid now would be 150/160k Max.
Cost of ownership, 70/80k over 3 years.
As far as I can see there really is very little in it considering one is a well established brand & the other started selling cars in 2011 !!
Absolutely spot on.Cost of ownership was 90k over 3 years.
A brand new high spec 458 Spider would have been 220/230k in 2015, trade bid now would be 150/160k Max.
Cost of ownership, 70/80k over 3 years.
As far as I can see there really is very little in it considering one is a well established brand & the other started selling cars in 2011 !!
You pays your money and take your choice.
Personally I preferred 650S overall over 458 but if buying from new you have to realise the brand and network is not as strong as Ferrari even if the product is superior.
McLaren need to increase dealers and aftersales and support residuals not reduce prices which WON'T happen.
Still a young brand and dealer network but their cars are sublime.
Just go in eyes open to ownership cost and you won't be disappointed
LotusJas said:
RamboLambo said:
ferdi p said:
A brand new high spec 458 Spider would have been 220/230k in 2015, trade bid now would be 150/160k Max.
the cheapest 458 spider 2015 year on sale is £185,000+the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
baypond said:
the cheapest 458 spider 2015 year on sale is £185,000+
the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
Had a trade bid, car and myself unknown to dealer, only 2 weeks ago and it was £120k so I politely turned their speculative offer down. FACT not speculation and I've subsequently dealt on a 675LT spider with a deal I consider fairthe McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
baypond said:
the cheapest 458 spider 2015 year on sale is £185,000+
the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
But were talking trade bids not retail, no Ferrari dealer will pay over 155k for a 2015 458 Spider.the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
Pretty much everyone got a massive discount on a brand new 650 in 2015, not the case with a 458 Spider.
I believe the cost difference to own a 650 over a 458 would be around 20/25k over the 3 year period. Not pocket change I grant you but certainly not a night & day difference.
ferdi p said:
baypond said:
the cheapest 458 spider 2015 year on sale is £185,000+
the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
But were talking trade bids not retail, no Ferrari dealer will pay over 155k for a 2015 458 Spider.the McLaren equivalent is £130,000
The Mclaren was £250,000+ if you missed the discounts available and still £220k +/- if you did get a discount.
Suggests trade bid for the 650S Spider is more like £110k so I think the difference is larger than you think, and still 40/50k difference in depreciation for like for like car Ferrari vs McLaren.
Pretty much everyone got a massive discount on a brand new 650 in 2015, not the case with a 458 Spider.
I believe the cost difference to own a 650 over a 458 would be around 20/25k over the 3 year period. Not pocket change I grant you but certainly not a night & day difference.
Disclaimer - the above numbers are approximate, I cannot go back through months of drivel to get the exact figures, but perhaps RL can confirm or correct.
ferdi p said:
But were talking trade bids not retail, no Ferrari dealer will pay over 155k for a 2015 458 Spider.
Pretty much everyone got a massive discount on a brand new 650 in 2015, not the case with a 458 Spider.
I believe the cost difference to own a 650 over a 458 would be around 20/25k over the 3 year period. Not pocket change I grant you but certainly not a night & day difference.
Agree and well worth the £20k premium for the better and more exclusive car that everyone thinks is a P1 and a £1,000,000Pretty much everyone got a massive discount on a brand new 650 in 2015, not the case with a 458 Spider.
I believe the cost difference to own a 650 over a 458 would be around 20/25k over the 3 year period. Not pocket change I grant you but certainly not a night & day difference.
Jules360 said:
Let's use RL's experience. Back when he was buying his 650S, he was offered a 458 Spider for about 35k off list. So that car would have been about 190k. Trade bid now is apparently 155k, so 35k lost. Instead, he paid a discounted 240k for his 650S, which is now worth 120k to the trade. A bit of a dofference.
Disclaimer - the above numbers are approximate, I cannot go back through months of drivel to get the exact figures, but perhaps RL can confirm or correct.
You are not too far out but my own figures are fortunately better than that both front and back end.Disclaimer - the above numbers are approximate, I cannot go back through months of drivel to get the exact figures, but perhaps RL can confirm or correct.
Yes if I had bought the 458 spider from HR Owen at £190k in hindsight I would of been sitting pretty now but TBH do I regret it - NO not one bit the 650S Spider has been a fantastic car. The best supercar that I have owned to date and the only reason I didn't feel the urge to replace it for 3 1/2 years when others have been and gone within 6 months. Even now its cost me over twice as much money to find a suitable upgrade in the 675LT Spider
Its not just about the money. Not everyone gets the McLaren thing yet but they will do especially when McLaren as a brand sort their act out ( not their cars )
They need a stronger dealer network with better aftersales and used car sales operations.
McLaren need to sort their sales and marketing strategy out as well as supporting used car residuals in a same way as Ferrari as to not p155 off loyal customers and retain repeat business.
I'm on my 3rd McLaren now and I love them and yes its been a more expensive ownership experience than Ferrari but also so much more rewarding and exclusive.
Would I buy a Ferrari from the current range - No not a cat in hells chance. The 488 spider is boring and I don't qualify for a pista or 812 superfast
Grammar alert - apologies.
RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
WDISMYL said:
Grammar alert - apologies.
RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
Apologies for the grammatical errors.RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
You Would Have thought a private grammar school education would have sorted that
RamboLambo said:
WDISMYL said:
Grammar alert - apologies.
RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
Apologies for the grammatical errors.RamboLambo could you at least try to correct your use of “of” instead of “have”? It’s even more irritating than the content of your posts.
It is should have not should of.
It is would have not would of.
It is could have not could of.
The reason why you are making the mistake is probably because you are hearing the shortened written version.
Could’ve (could have) sounds like could of.
Would’ve (would have) sounds like would of.
Should’ve (should have) sounds like should of.
Please stop it. Hopefully I can now look forward to reading your posts explaining why the 675LT is the best supercar at its price level and will never depreciate without you butchering the written word.
You Would Have thought a private grammar school education would have sorted that
RamboLambo said:
I'm on my 3rd McLaren now and I love them and yes its been a more expensive ownership experience than Ferrari but also so much more rewarding and exclusive.
Would I buy a Ferrari from the current range - No not a cat in hells chance. The 488 spider is boring and I don't qualify for a pista or 812 superfast
While I wouldn't use the word "boring" to describe the 488 Spider, it's not sufficiently "better" than a 458 Spider (for me) to justify getting into a car that will depreciate a lot (even if not as much as a McLaren maybe). And I don't qualify for the special handshake brigade who get to buy a Pista either. I know it's not about depreciation and live the moment and all that so the real differential here is "better". Or not better enough (unless you are buying it for a lot of track work) if I might be excused a little language butchery by the grammar police. And this might be just prejudice and ignorance, but it's my money so I can justify not spending it in whatever prejudiced way I want - the various almost indistinguishable (to me) McLaren variants* are all not "better" enough either for my modest needs and they don't sound great to me. Would I buy a Ferrari from the current range - No not a cat in hells chance. The 488 spider is boring and I don't qualify for a pista or 812 superfast
So where does that leave a person looking for a change? Well where I live there are no Lambo dealers available without a ferry ride so the obvious Performante isn't actually an obvious choice. I'm actually thinking of flogging my 458 at a price which equals to a not principal loss anyway, having regard to how infrequently I drive it and throwing a chunk of change at one of those Supercar clubs and disciplining myself enough to plan trips with them.
- Edit - the 720S is not indistinguishable but I waver between liking its bold and innovative looks and seeing a Guppy whose eyes have been gouged out with a spoon.
Edited by MingtheMerciless on Monday 30th July 13:15
Surely there can not be anyone left reading this forum, who does not realise that buying a new McLaren at list price, will mean that after 3 years it will be worth roughly 50% of its list price. Even the LT models are now nursing £50k plus losses.
McLaren needs volume - they don't care even if they have to discounts cars in order to achieve this volume. They are not interested in residuals. If they were they would be trying to protect them. a 2012 12C has a trade value of £70k - a car that had a list price with extras of £200k! How can this be acceptable? 570S Spiders are selling with £30k discounts. Totally unacceptable.
Lack of dealers, independents are non existent, and warranties are £5k. The cars are very complex, parts are very expensive. Its just a recipe for disaster. Even the F1 team is going backwards and is now languishing at the back of the grid.
Where is the good news??
McLaren needs volume - they don't care even if they have to discounts cars in order to achieve this volume. They are not interested in residuals. If they were they would be trying to protect them. a 2012 12C has a trade value of £70k - a car that had a list price with extras of £200k! How can this be acceptable? 570S Spiders are selling with £30k discounts. Totally unacceptable.
Lack of dealers, independents are non existent, and warranties are £5k. The cars are very complex, parts are very expensive. Its just a recipe for disaster. Even the F1 team is going backwards and is now languishing at the back of the grid.
Where is the good news??
subirg said:
Why is everyone comparing Mac residual prices to Ferrari? Surely a better comparison is Lambo or Aston - and on that basis the residuals are quite comparable.
They compete for the same buyers and these are very wealthy people who are often quite shrewd with their money which is how they got to have a lot in the first place. I’m sure that there are loads of people who aren’t pure driven enthusiast petrol heads who want a supercar but aren’t entirely driven by their hearts, and their heads say pick the Ferrari which might lose them £10,000’s less in depreciation over the year or so they dabble.
They are also probably not the sort of person who would find a 488 to be ‘boring’ etc
jakesmith said:
They compete for the same buyers and these are very wealthy people who are often quite shrewd with their money which is how they got to have a lot in the first place.
I’m sure that there are loads of people who aren’t pure driven enthusiast petrol heads who want a supercar but aren’t entirely driven by their hearts, and their heads say pick the Ferrari which might lose them £10,000’s less in depreciation over the year or so they dabble.
They are also probably not the sort of person who would find a 488 to be ‘boring’ etc
LOL the only sort of person who would think a 488 is boring, is the same sort of person that would get a kick out of strangers incorrectly thinking their car was a more expensive model I’m sure that there are loads of people who aren’t pure driven enthusiast petrol heads who want a supercar but aren’t entirely driven by their hearts, and their heads say pick the Ferrari which might lose them £10,000’s less in depreciation over the year or so they dabble.
They are also probably not the sort of person who would find a 488 to be ‘boring’ etc
TP321 said:
Surely there can not be anyone left reading this forum, who does not realise that buying a new McLaren at list price, will mean that after 3 years it will be worth roughly 50% of its list price. Even the LT models are now nursing £50k plus losses.
McLaren needs volume - they don't care even if they have to discounts cars in order to achieve this volume. They are not interested in residuals. If they were they would be trying to protect them. a 2012 12C has a trade value of £70k - a car that had a list price with extras of £200k! How can this be acceptable? 570S Spiders are selling with £30k discounts. Totally unacceptable.
Lack of dealers, independents are non existent, and warranties are £5k. The cars are very complex, parts are very expensive. Its just a recipe for disaster. Even the F1 team is going backwards and is now languishing at the back of the grid.
Where is the good news??
Here...McLaren needs volume - they don't care even if they have to discounts cars in order to achieve this volume. They are not interested in residuals. If they were they would be trying to protect them. a 2012 12C has a trade value of £70k - a car that had a list price with extras of £200k! How can this be acceptable? 570S Spiders are selling with £30k discounts. Totally unacceptable.
Lack of dealers, independents are non existent, and warranties are £5k. The cars are very complex, parts are very expensive. Its just a recipe for disaster. Even the F1 team is going backwards and is now languishing at the back of the grid.
Where is the good news??
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/29/mc...
ferdi p said:
That’s what matters to the shareholders. Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff